Agent X's letter

[Scarab]

...This is why they say Nothing Is Scarier, isn't it?

Pretty much. As long as you have a Cthulhu to shot at, you have a focal point. Useless as it may be, you have something to point out and define as "That's the enemy" or "That's the problem". Being in the dark and having no beacon to cling to on the other hand...

Right... We may be absolutely outmatched by the horrors that could be released, but at least we can DEFINE them and ergo TRY and defend against them. Right now we don't even have a target. Not knowing kind of makes you have to supress the ever growing urge to hide under the bed (except I suspect under the bed is going to become one of the LEAST safe places in the world, if the wall breaks down. A lot of spooky stuff goes on under there...)

I'm still half afraid that we're going to have to deal with something even older and more dangerous than definable, understandable characters.

2. Seen it before- Mr. A has somehow, somewhere and/or when seen a fictional incursion into reality before, and seen both the damage they can do and that the signs of reality collapsing do nor show untill it actuly DOES collapse. He cannot provide evidence because it does not show untill too late, and speeks solely from experience. If so, "Agent X" is probably desperatly looking for any signs of the damage being visible before reality fails in order to convince others. If this is true, that we must complete reficitionalization, FAST.

They're all interesting points, but this one in particular intrigues me... I don't suppose we could ask him? But surely he'd have told us if that were the case... heck, surely there'd be some kind of RECORD of it.

[Pixelmage]

To address point 2. Only Prime would retain that information. No instantiation would get that much intel, meaning if that's the case, unless we can get Prime to talk to us, there's no way to confirm it.

Also, guys. My advice: Wait cAke to respond. The way this is going WE will come up with a justification we can accept and he'll just come mere to quote and say "You're right, run with it.", for now we should wait until we get cAke presence on the matter.

[Sicon112]

I'm going with the theoretical calculation, combined with a rational cost/benefit analysis like I was doing previously. This confirms that he was attempting to help us by getting evidence, which is further evidence against the lying claim. (See my previous post for details about how lying would bring up many inconsistencies that would need to be resolved) It seems to me to be just as you have all said, a giant communication issue. Everything he has done so far seems to me to be perfectly logical and pragmatic for a being who almost, but doesn't quite understand human beings.

Also, once and for all, there ARE cracks. This has NOTHING to do with the fact that there are cracks. This is about whether fictionals are having a dangerous affect on reality. Mr. A sent someone to study the locations for us, and those specific locations came up with nothing, which could just be because there was no echo actually there. In essence, we know echos are happening, and we are more or less sure that they are caused by characters themselves. We are not sure if they are harmful, and we are not sure if closing the wall will stop them or allow them to keep going. If they are harmful and closing the wall does nothing to stop them, then we are in the worst case scenario, however, as of now we cannot determine that because Mr. A does not have the equipment to be sure.

[Sicon112]

To address point 2. Only Prime would retain that information. No instantiation would get that much intel, meaning if that's the case, unless we can get Prime to talk to us, there's no way to confirm it.

Also, guys. My advice: Wait cAke to respond. The way this is going WE will come up with a justification we can accept and he'll just come mere to quote and say "You're right, run with it.", for now we should wait until we get cAke presence on the matter.

All we can say on point two is that no instantiation we have asked about the subject was aware of any previous instance of this happening.

[Qara-Xuan Zenith]

GUYS.
This letter gives us NO NEW INFORMATION. I mean, really, nothing new. It's like this:

1. A tells us that the fictionals' presence probably destabilizes reality.
2. We ask him for proof.
3. He tells us there probably won't be any conclusive evidence until it's too late.
4. We bug him for proof again, anyway.
5. He tell us the same thing, but to humour us, sends Agent X to investigate. He doesn't mention that to us, because there's no point in bringing up an investigation until it gets results.
6. Agent X sends A his letter confirming that all results are inconclusive.
7. A tells us the results of X's investigation; namely, that it appears solid evidence will be impossible to get at this stage. He doesn't directly mention X's investigation because, why bother?
8. We read X's letter. Panic ensues.

He didn't conceal anything from us. He didn't lie, he didn't deceive. This letter backs up what he already told us, and it is a pointless letter. You can only call him out for trying to conceal it if you think he should share every letter from every agent, verbatim, with us. Personally, I think that would be too much. This way, he, equipped as he is with infinite instantiations, processes the information, and gives us the useful results in Laconic form.

I really think we have to stop distrusting A. He is on our side.

[Scarab]

He didn't conceal anything from us. He didn't lie, he didn't deceive. This letter backs up what he already told us, and it is a pointless letter. You can only call him out for trying to conceal it if you think he should share every letter from every agent, verbatim, with us. Personally, I think that would be too much. This way, he, equipped as he is with infinite instantiations, processes the information, and gives us the useful results in Laconic form.

I really think we have to stop distrusting A. He is on our side.

Did you write this before or after Morgan showed up in chat?

Although you DO make a good point nonetheless, Qara. And even after Morgan's appearance don't we still have EXACTLY the same problem we did before? The fact that we only get proof as to whether we've done the right thing when it's too LATE?

[TheJester]

To every person saying "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I dislike that crappy argument very much.

[Sicon112]

To every person saying "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I dislike that crappy argument very much.

Honestly I agree this time. It isn't a very good argument. Absence of evidence isn't PROOF of absence, but it does perhaps suggest it. However, we do have evidence that something is occurring, the question is, what? I'll be working on some new theories using the observable information, then applying the claims of both sides to them. I should be done in the next day or so.

[narrativedilettante]

To every person saying "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I dislike that crappy argument very much.

All right, then Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence. We can't afford to assume that something isn't there, just because we can't tell for certain that it is there. As Sicon says, clearly SOMETHING is going on, we just don't know what it is. I don't think we can afford to make assumptions about anything. We have to protect ourselves from the most dangerous possible outcome, and keep trying to find more information.

[Chief Wakamakamu]

To every person saying "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I dislike that crappy argument very much.

All right, then Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence. We can't afford to assume that something isn't there, just because we can't tell for certain that it is there. As Sicon says, clearly SOMETHING is going on, we just don't know what it is. I don't think we can afford to make assumptions about anything. We have to protect ourselves from the most dangerous possible outcome, and keep trying to find more information.

I don't think this holds. Way back when, someone brought up something comparing this to claiming being near people of a certain nationality can give you cancer. There has been no evidence to support this, but does that mean we should avoid people of that nationality, just in case SOMEHOW it's still TRUE?

[narrativedilettante]

To every person saying "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I dislike that crappy argument very much.

All right, then Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence. We can't afford to assume that something isn't there, just because we can't tell for certain that it is there. As Sicon says, clearly SOMETHING is going on, we just don't know what it is. I don't think we can afford to make assumptions about anything. We have to protect ourselves from the most dangerous possible outcome, and keep trying to find more information.

I don't think this holds. Way back when, someone brought up something comparing this to claiming being near people of a certain nationality can give you cancer. There has been no evidence to support this, but does that mean we should avoid people of that nationality, just in case SOMEHOW it's still TRUE?

This situation calls for a unique approach. The example you give is one that's easily falsifiable: One can do studies regarding cancer rates among people who've had exposure to people of various nationalities, and those studies will show that there is no increased risk of cancer associated with people of any given nationality.

We can't conduct any studies in this case. We only have our one reality. There's no way to compare what's happening here with what would happen in a different reality in a similar circumstance. Very few of our theories are falsifiable, and those that are, we could only test by risking the destruction of ourselves and everyone else.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the decisions we have to make, because we have so little information and so little evidence. I don't think we'll ever be able to know what the right decision is. But I think the only decision it's safe to make is the one with that puts the smallest number of people in potential danger.

And the moment we learn more about what's going on and what the consequences of our actions could be, I'm willing to revise the plan. But so far all the information that's been gathered has proved inconclusive, and we're stuck going over the same conjectures.

[The Finch]

I don't even guys.

I can haz TL;DR?

[Scarab]

I don't think this holds. Way back when, someone brought up something comparing this to claiming being near people of a certain nationality can give you cancer. There has been no evidence to support this, but does that mean we should avoid people of that nationality, just in case SOMEHOW it's still TRUE?

Yeeeah I really don't think this is the same thing. Connecting somebody of a certain nationality with cancer is a completely meaningless coinscidence with no actual real world evidence that would make sense beyond that. But the fact that we've been told the fourth wall is breaking down and we've been SEEING some actual, physical effects or reality suggests at least that something is going on which should be investigated.

[Sicon112]

I don't think this holds. Way back when, someone brought up something comparing this to claiming being near people of a certain nationality can give you cancer. There has been no evidence to support this, but does that mean we should avoid people of that nationality, just in case SOMEHOW it's still TRUE?

Yeeeah I really don't think this is the same thing. Connecting somebody of a certain nationality with cancer is a completely meaningless coinscidence with no actual real world evidence that would make sense beyond that. But the fact that we've been told the fourth wall is breaking down and we've been SEEING some actual, physical effects or reality suggests at least that something is going on which should be investigated.

It's Reductio Ad Absurdum. A typical debate strategy. That's all. Not a big deal.

[Dryunya]

First, I'm back, beeeatch.

Before leaving, I skimmed through the letter and said that it proves nothing. Now I've read it properly, and I stand by my words. Everything had been said already, but with elephants.

1. All the agent's letter says is that he didn't find any evidence of Mr. A's claims about the characters. You know, just like Mr. A said.
2. If the same was claimed by someone else (like Tinkerbell), all he would have are claims. He says he had conducted some research with some devices (that operate on lime yogurt ), and that's it. Not very conclusive, I should say. Which brings us to...
3. Trust issues, which it boils down to. I'll save that for the Cabal's thread. But I'll say that I trust Mr. A more than I trust the Cabal. Duh.

[Scarab]

First, I'm back, beeeatch.

Before leaving, I skimmed through the letter and said that it proves nothing. Now I've read it properly, and I stand by my words. Everything had been said already, but with elephants.

1. All the agent's letter says is that he didn't find any evidence of Mr. A's claims about the characters. You know, just like Mr. A said.
2. If the same was claimed by someone else (like Tinkerbell), all he would have are claims. He says he had conducted some research with some devices (that operate on lime yogurt ), and that's it. Not very conclusive, I should say. Which brings us to...
3. Trust issues, which it boils down to. I'll save that for the Cabal's thread. But I'll say that I trust Mr. A more than I trust the Cabal. Duh.

Pretty much hit the nail on the ehad there. Dryu (and welcome baaaack).

Of course, since that letter, we HAVE been contacted by Morgan herself. We still have no specific evidence to speak of but I'm not sure this letter should be entirely dismissed.

As I have said many times before, I'm not sure I trust eithert Mister A or the Cabal but I trust Joe, and I trust you guys. You#re where I'm placing my faith for now.